Two-Faced Media Ranting    
    Anthony Milne hits out at media hypocrisy about the 'asylum' flood while still deriding 'racists'    

Immigration into Britain will continue into the indefinite future at least 200,000 a year because of the monolithic nature of the political and legal system which offers no institutional opposition. This stark fact spells serious trouble for the future of both democracy and the rule of law. For example, in a recent Populus opinion poll most voters said they had no faith that any of the major parties would do anything about the problem.

Hence the recent flurry of newspaper campaigns and features about illegal immigration will have very little effect on the ruling elite. Instead they will use such campaigns to their advantage and just brag about how much Britain "values freedom of opinion."

In fact, the current media campaign is not only futile but hypocritical and two-faced. It is the media that has consistently and viciously attacked and smeared British and European political parties that have stood on largely anti-immigration platforms. Personal abuse is hurled at politicians whose only crime is to try to use the democratic political system to get their message across on the subject.

Attacks on Le Pen

Just look at the vitriolic campaign that was whipped up in the media when Jean Marie Le Pen came second place in the French presidential elections in April 2002. The Sun, the same tabloid that has recently been ranting on about asylum-seekers, declared in street-thug language reminiscent of the old Morning Star "What has happened in France is repugnant... the French Prime Minister was beaten by the fascists... Le Pen is a vile politician... the Fascists are on the march again!"

The Daily Mail, which has also been babbling about immigration, used similar strident language. In a bold headline it read: "The failures that created a monster." Andrew Neil, once editor of the crusading ‘investigative’ Sunday Times, wrote: "Arrogant elite that enabled this thug to rise to power." Meanwhile, "Socialists fall victim to ugly face of French politics," shouted a Times headline. In an eight-page supplement on "The Rise of the Far Right,": the leading headline was "Menacing charm of one-eyed bully boy."

The Times now says, in reference to the January success of the BNP in the local council by-election in Calderdale: "The party should not be given publicity and prestige by inflating its importance..."

For all its ranting in phoney protest against the current tide of immigration, it is the press that has deliberately created a climate of fear about the subject; and that is now is beginning to rebound on it. The Mail had the cheek the other day to complain about its own ‘McCarthyite’ tactics. "For our pains," wrote the editor, "we have been smeared as ‘xenophobic’"

Excuse me, but who did this smearing, exactly? In a recent Mori poll 26 per cent of those interviewed were reluctant to say what they really thought of immigration for fear of being branded as ‘racists’. And who did the branding? you might ask. It certainly wasn't the people you met in the pub last night. And who put the nonsense into people's head that "you do not have to be white to be British"? It was the broadcast media with their multi-cultural quiz shows and soap operas - pumped into people's homes night after night that put the idea into people's heads, that's who!

‘Race and identity are not up for negotiation, what ever people say, no matter who they are or how much cultural influence or political power they have.’ If you are not an Anglo-Celt, you are not British, and if you are not an Arab you are not an Arab; if you are not Chinese you are not Chinese. These are simple facts of life which everyone learns at his or her mother's knee. The fact that ordinary people at made to go around denying their own ancestral identity just shows how evil the opinion-forming elites have become.

Immigration altered the news agenda

The reason why the press has done an about-turn on the subject of recent immigration is because a few courageous journalists, like Anthony Browne of The Times, has foreseen all the horrifying ramifications to political, civil and cultural life that unfettered immigration is soon to bring about. Immigration has fundamentally altered the news agenda, and many reporters don't like what they have report, with about a third of all domestic stories involving mosques, asylum seekers, Arab terrorists, black gunmen and massive housing schemes made necessary to accommodate the newcomers.

Some worry whether their own foolishness has destroyed ‘fearless’ journalism. Many seem not to know how far they can legally go on certain subjects. Every single paper that campaigns against continued immigration has to make soothing noises by saying things like: "We are not racists... immigrants have contributed richly to this country... we have no objection to genuine asylum-seekers," etc., without seeming to have the common sense to realise they are pulling the rug from under their feet. They act like editors of Arabic newspapers, who always, to be on the safe side, preface their comments with "Allah the Merciful" or "Allah the Wise." Anthony Browne made the shrewdest observation about this: "Of course multi-culturalism is ‘enriching’ because if it is not then it could rise up and kill us."

The most pointless thing to say is: "We have no objection to genuine asylum-seekers," since all illegal immigrants claim to be precisely that. No refugee will say: "I am not genuine." The press weaken their case by adding qualifying clauses, and thus break one of the fundamental rules of journalism.

Take Melanie Phillips, one of the most strident writers on immigration in recent years, who says that "Britain should withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention." But in the same breath she goes on to say: "This does not mean shutting our doors to genuine refugees." Of course it does; what else could it mean? She could quite legally and safely say: "We don't want any asylum-seekers, whether genuine or not." That is the only way to ensure that we don't get bogus refugees. It will be foolproof.

The argument that to withdraw irrevocably from the 1951 Convention would be to "repudiate our international obligations" can hardly be a moral one if the Convention was signed into law in the first place without the knowledge or consent of the British people.

A catch in the small print!

The Sun's petition to get people to campaign against the immigration flood by sending in a bit of paper to Downing Street urging the government to act now contains a paragraph with the longest section of it saying: "While I support legal immigration and have no problems with those who face genuine persecution or bring a skill to our economy..." There is no point in signing such a load of hedge-betting nonsense. That one sentence might be the longest many a Sun-reader will ever utter in his life. The government will merely turn round and say: "We have two million people sending in petitions saying they approve of legal immigration and genuine asylum seekers." So that's all right then!

This media-blurred focus on immigration is an acknowledgement of the enormous entrenched cultural forces at work among the liberal elite, whose sinister tentacles are everywhere in public life. Careers and reputations are at stake. Journalists behave as if they are factions within political parties, playing safe and splitting hairs, watching their words. They know Britain can't go on like it is, and yet cannot sort out the issues for themselves. Many know that the unnecessary Human Rights Act has added immensely to the country's difficulties, but somehow they think they are beneficiaries of it, when in fact they are its victims.

They have painted themselves into a corner and then whinge about it. In journalistic circles there is something known as ‘That-Roadism’. An all-out attack on immigration means that they will have to give more favourable coverage to the so-called ‘Far Right’ and its political parties. But: "We don't want to go down that road!"

In fact, the only road they have taken is to the sharp Left. Peter Riddell, a typical Times fat-headed left-liberal, writes: "There is a narrow line between legitimate concern and blanket xenophobia and racism." There isn't, actually. This line has been painted by the media themselves through the use of deliberately provocative and loaded street-fighting language typical of the student union - just look at the examples I have given. Or else it means they haven't the writing skills to phrase things to avoid any criticism that might be levelled against them.

If they are frightened of purely political interference or legal attacks, then this should make them and us all worry deeply.

    Spearhead Online